D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Here is the letter from Pope Leo XIII I mentioned. A lot to ponder:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM
Pax
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM
Pax
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
How that relates to a “fundamentalist mind-set” is as clear as mud, and how do we know whether the judgment of DL82 is in accord with fidelity or not without specifics?
Precisely.
“General terms” here are useless, they only muddy the waters. What is needed is what statement is considered by the poster to be against doctrine or dogma.
Here is Christ’s mandate for us to judge everything against truth:
“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).
T
Thankfulness
Guest
Dear Abu, you have failed to grasp that he is speaking less of doctrines or dogmas,
than of attitudes… perhaps described as ‘self-righteousness’ to some degree along with a limited grasp of the whole of authentic Catholic truth. Together these form a disturbing union where these folk judge anyone who does not conform to their limited but rigid grasp of authentic truth.
Be at peace.
A
Abu
Guest
Without specifics this is trying to spin a top in mud.
Why should any opinion be cloaked in obscurity so that it cannot be challenged? Looks very smug and self-congratulatory.
A
Abu
Guest
The political term “conservative” here is applied to “thinking” on Catholic moral teaching!
And not a skerrick of evidence is supplied to support such an opinion, although moral teaching is doctrine, and as though “Church documents” are antagonistic to “Tradition”. What a jumble.
Yet error is insinuated when “advice or practice” is rejected – “advice” from whom, on whose authority and practice? What a confused set of insinuations. Let’s face reality with facts.
A
Abu
Guest
To try to pigeonhole the aspects discussed by Pope Leo III in 1899 as in sync with today is puerile, without any evidence, especially considering the reality of Vatican II and of papal encyclicals since, and the sneering at the “more conservative sort” re “moral teaching”, all without evidence.
The blind leading the blind.
The blind leading the blind.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I don’t quite follow or understand your comments. Have you read the document I referred to? If you think it isn’t relevant, can you tell me exactly why, based upon what is in the document. A general objection based upon “Vatican II” doesn’t really let me know what you see as an issue.
I didn’t think I was sneering at anybody, and certainly did not intend to. If you think I am against “the more conservative sort” or disputing the Church’s moral teaching, then you have misunderstood me.
“Liberal” and “conservative” are not very appropriate labels for Catholics. There are orthodox and heterodox. You either believe what the Church teaches or you don’t. People err from that in all sorts of ways, “liberal” and “conservative” both. In general though, I’d say the American Church has been far more damaged by those who are commonly described as “liberal”.
I hope that explains myself a bit better.
Pax Christi
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I don’t where to start. You’re all over the map. So I’m going to start bit by bit – with the last paragraph first.
Not exclusively, they aren’t. Encyclicals are written theme by theme. Some are spiritual and broad in nature. However, many of them are written as explicit doctrinal documents: on systematics, or on moral doctrine – the latter especially in response to contemporary issues (bioethics, the exclusive nature of Traditional Marriage, the exclusivity of the male ministerial priesthood, and other issues in past time periods) Other encyclicals are slightly broader, but are still in apparent response to contemporary thought or trends, such as general guidelines on social justice, on the environment, etc. Still others address liturgical practice.
Some of these encyclicals also contain some – yes, rich spirituality – but I daresay that that is not the purpose for which most of them are written. If anything, the spirituality supports the doctrine, not vice-versa.
Second, your problem is that you are engaging in the same kind of either/or thinking that you accuse “American Catholics” of (a very broad group, by the way). You seem to think that those who understand the doctrinal boundaries of Catholicism must also be “fundamentalist” in nature, must not read widely in their faith, and must be joyless. Notice, everyone, how he contrasts a caricature of “American Catholics” with
I have to wonder just who are the supposedly narrow-minded: those who believe that most American Catholics are fundamentalist in their thinking, or the supposed ‘fundamentalists.’
Now, when you speak about the fullness of truth, if you’re complaining about the stunted literacy of modern Catholics, there’s plenty of that to go around – among those you call ‘conservatives’ and among those you might call ‘liberals.’ In my view, the only difference between “liberal” modern Catholics and “conservative” modern Catholics is that the latter has at least read the Catechism and some other primary sources, whereas the modernist liberal Catholic has generally read almost nothing except pablum, if that. American secular literacy (I get to weigh in on this as an educator) is in an abysmal state; American Catholic literacy is a rung below that, if that’s possible. Particularly ignored, in both realms, is anything published in non-electronic format, and anything in any format published before 1970.
So I am indirectly agreeing with you only in one respect – a point buried in your OP – that the interest in evangelization of new Catholics (for the last 20 years) has been at the even further expense of an already compromised catechesis in the Church, which became evident at least 10 years before evangelization became all the rage. It doesn’t do much for a faith to bring in people whom you are not prepared to educate, or interested in educating. No matter how “on fire” they are with the institution, if they don’t understand their faith, can’t explain their faith, they also can’t defend their faith, and thus they in turn will be poor catechizers. That is NOT what JP2 meant when he made evangelization a centerpiece of his papacy. He did not mean a Do or Die evanglization, but just as so many priests, bishops, and laity have grossly misinterpreted Vatican 2, many current Catholics have also, i.m.o., distorted John Paul’s vision of evangelization and interpreted his words superficially.
cont’d…
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
[continuing…]
Most well-informed new Catholics have had to, or are beginning to, educate themselves, because still in 2011, it is not being provided to them sufficiently. In order to have a fuller understanding of what the Catechism means when it says X, they have to seek out primary and secondary sources.
The best way to learn Catholicism as a coherent faith tradition is to learn it in Catholic school, particularly on the secondary level, and by means of a curriculum with a strong philosophical base, taught by those who themselves were comprehensively taught preferably in a top-level Catholic U or in seminary or novitiate. That is where you’re going to be introduced, and have discussions about, classic Catholic thought, including the spirituality of the Saints, the thinking of non-21st century theologians, Patristics, etc.
There is no such thing as a crash course in Catholicism.
HOWEVER, that classic Catholic literature is not contradictory to the Catechism. It seems to me that that’s what your OP implied. The Catechism is a skeletal version of key Catholic dogma and doctrine, in outline form (as the Index shows). It is not a different version of moral theology or systematics or spirituality; it is a condensation. If a new Catholic does or did understand the Catechism well (either from coursework, or from referring to the footnotes there and reading those sources), then what he or she says when referring to the CCC is not “rigid.” It is accurate, if perhaps minimalist.
The solution to a (not the only) trend in American Catholicism, of which you complain, is a return to the primacy of catechesis. Intelligent, informed Catholics will be the best evangelizers ever. One of the fascinating programs on EWTN is Marcus Grodi’s The Journey Home, discussing conversions (and some reversions). The vast majority of the programs I’ve seen feature guests whose major draw to Catholicism (from Protestant sects, from Judaism, from atheism) was the intellectual coherence of Catholicism. The converts saw in Catholicism an intellectual system which was unified and which they could respect.
Nevertheless, the so-called “trend” of which you speak does not, in my experience as a Catholic, represent the majority of practicing Catholics today. They may be, to you, the most visible because (if they have an ‘evangelical’ mindset themselves) they may be the most vocal.
Most well-informed new Catholics have had to, or are beginning to, educate themselves, because still in 2011, it is not being provided to them sufficiently. In order to have a fuller understanding of what the Catechism means when it says X, they have to seek out primary and secondary sources.
The best way to learn Catholicism as a coherent faith tradition is to learn it in Catholic school, particularly on the secondary level, and by means of a curriculum with a strong philosophical base, taught by those who themselves were comprehensively taught preferably in a top-level Catholic U or in seminary or novitiate. That is where you’re going to be introduced, and have discussions about, classic Catholic thought, including the spirituality of the Saints, the thinking of non-21st century theologians, Patristics, etc.
There is no such thing as a crash course in Catholicism.
HOWEVER, that classic Catholic literature is not contradictory to the Catechism. It seems to me that that’s what your OP implied. The Catechism is a skeletal version of key Catholic dogma and doctrine, in outline form (as the Index shows). It is not a different version of moral theology or systematics or spirituality; it is a condensation. If a new Catholic does or did understand the Catechism well (either from coursework, or from referring to the footnotes there and reading those sources), then what he or she says when referring to the CCC is not “rigid.” It is accurate, if perhaps minimalist.
The solution to a (not the only) trend in American Catholicism, of which you complain, is a return to the primacy of catechesis. Intelligent, informed Catholics will be the best evangelizers ever. One of the fascinating programs on EWTN is Marcus Grodi’s The Journey Home, discussing conversions (and some reversions). The vast majority of the programs I’ve seen feature guests whose major draw to Catholicism (from Protestant sects, from Judaism, from atheism) was the intellectual coherence of Catholicism. The converts saw in Catholicism an intellectual system which was unified and which they could respect.
Nevertheless, the so-called “trend” of which you speak does not, in my experience as a Catholic, represent the majority of practicing Catholics today. They may be, to you, the most visible because (if they have an ‘evangelical’ mindset themselves) they may be the most vocal.
B
Bookcat
Guest
PS: I recommend reading not just the two above (but certainly do!)…but all the Homilies and Audiences and various letters of Pope Benedict XVI. They are beautiful and rich.
Peter strengthening his brothers…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/index.htm
D
Debora123
Guest
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
Amen, brother. I see this a LOT in the Traditional parish I go to, and it’s maddening. We’re supposed to have a lively faith in God and a zest for living in the world He gave us, not jumping at every bump in the night and calling it the devil or branding everyone as a heretic who doesn’t share the same narrow, legalistic view of how to live as a Catholic, or accuse someone of being part of the Culture of Death because they don’t have a pewful of kids, or getting into a panic because a woman wore dress slacks to Mass on a frigid cold day (I’m in Massachusetts: it gets beastly cold in the winter). What also bugs me are the kind of Catholics who come off like Protestants who go to a Catholic Mass and say the rosary, eg. a friend of mine who insists that the Left Behind novels are great and gets panicky about Halloween.
D
Debora123
Guest
I think people do this because it makes them feel better about themselves.
I totally agree with everything you say here, Matrix.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Matrix Refugee:
I think people do this because it makes them feel better about themselves.
I totally agree with everything you say here, Matrix.
Ditto.
M
michelleds
Guest
Elizabeth.Also, I’ll point out like I believe another poster above said: the OP posted this in the Apologetics Forum. Seriously, that’s like saying there are too many lawyers in a courthouse. Of course people are going to refer to original documents in the sub-forum of Moral Theology.
I still don’t have a full understanding of the OP’s intent and issue. Perhaps the OP could give us an example without naming names. For instance, A says X and then B says Y. and Y is what is giving me a problem. otherwise, I’m left to assume that since people disagree with someone and use the CCC or writings of Saints or encyclicals they are being “fundamentalist”. OP might even want to actually define “fundamentalist” without referring to Protestants.
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
I understand this as a infiltration of Evangelical Protestant and Calvinist ideas in Catholic environments.
One has to remeber that orthodoxy is a expression of truth and not a reaction to liberalism or progressism.
This theme has ties to the phariseeism issue too.
I suggest to read Father Leonardo Castellani writings about the subject, like his book Cristo y los fariseos.
Blessings!
One has to remeber that orthodoxy is a expression of truth and not a reaction to liberalism or progressism.
This theme has ties to the phariseeism issue too.
I suggest to read Father Leonardo Castellani writings about the subject, like his book Cristo y los fariseos.
Blessings!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Yes. Imagine. The nerve of them to source their replies.
Of course people are going to refer to original documents in the sub-forum of Moral Theology.
:doh2:
That makes about the 4th time that examples have been requested from the OP. They could be fictional examples, for all we care. Just an illustration will do.
For example, if a reply has involved rote parroting of a CCC paragraph (to a complex question with more than one moral issue), without consideration of nuances of the problem or concept, nuances that require more than a telegraphed reply, that could be a valid complaint, depending on the question.
However, I have noticed (I don’t know if this is true of the OP) that some posters are merely uncomfortable with objective doctrine, and that discomfort (evident in their posts) causes them to react to any references to the CCC. They would rather refer to “possibilities,” with an inference that all moral questions are open-ended and perhaps all moral answers are shrouded in indeterminate mystery, because they themselves are uncomfortable with objective theology of any category. The reality of a final answer which they cannot edit does not fit in with their religious ideology.
Another example of a valid complaint: the CCC, while it alludes to spirituality, has limited uses as a resource for Catholic spirituality, and even less practical applicability in the pastoral realm. Someone may be asking a deeply spiritual or pastoral question (“I have a moral or social justice problem with X; I know the theology, but I don’t know how to handle this problem with myself/my associate/my parish.”) Generally, those answers might better be sought in the Spirituality forum, but often these questions are asked in Apologetics. The answer will not best be found by quoting the CCC.
However, when someone asks a question about something essential in moral theology, or in liturgical practice, or in systematics, and the question does have an objective, factual answer, and within the thread the replies consist of the CCC, plus Encyclicals, plus Church Fathers, plus Apostolic Letters, plus sacred authors cited in any of those, then such responses are appropriate. The questioner asked for facts (not opinion); the responders provided facts. Please no one ask for facts if you would prefer not to have your factual question answered.
Asking for personal opinions about a settled doctrine is something else entirely. In that case, quoting the CCC is not appropriate. Also, in some categories (such as with Social Justice), the Church provides general guidelines, and there may be a relevant history of that issue which also bears on the discussion. Such was the case with several of us discussing the Church’s broad guidelines on immigration policy. In the case of social justice (economics, labor, etc.), the Church (both in the CCC and in other documents) most often provides a framework of general principles within which to assess particular government policies. There’s room for considerable speculation within such a debate as to which policies best support true social justice from a comprehensive Catholic tradition. Several of us contributed to a lively debate recently about that, and at other times as well.
Awaiting the OP’s repsonse…
B
Bookcat
Guest
Both are for our formation and spiritual reading and our living joyfully as Christians!
They are such wonderful gifts! The Catechism is such a very very rich document! More than the formation of the Conscience (which of course is very important) it is a vast wonderful and beautiful document …to help us live joyfully as disciples of Jesus Christ!
Creed, Sacraments, Life in Christ, and prayer!
The section on Prayer alone (heck any section) is worth more than its weight in Gold~!
I would encourage anyone to get the small paperback version with a cup of coffee and enjoy!
(I am not saying you disagree with what I noted…but am encouraging all to read and live it)
N
Nate13
Guest
Haha consider yourself lucky. Some of us are part of parishes where we are still trying to get people to jump on board the pro-life cause, and if you have 6 kids your looked at funny. Be thankful for what you have. Please hand that friend of yours Scott Hahn’s take on the the book of Revelation or a similar theologists view for me
Or go find some of those “legalistic” encyclicals that talk about how far off the mark the rapture theory and the Left Behind books are.- Status